9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (2) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , heard him and held that the concealed income was Rs. 8,657 and so he levied a penalty of Rs. 9,000 by an order dated 4th of March, 1974. Aggrieved, the assessee went up to the Tribunal in appeal. The Tribunal upheld the finding that there was concealment. It repelled the explanation furnished by the assessee. It further held that the IAC had jurisdiction to pass the order that he did even though the concealed income was held by him to be below Rs. 25,000. It repelled the submission of the assessee that the penalty order was barred by limitation. It was held that the amendments effected in s. 275 of the I.T. Act by the Amending Act of 1971 which came into force on 1st April, 1971, was retrospective and was applicable to the present proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be imposed on the assessee. If at the time of making the reference the ITO found that the minimum penalty imposable exceeded Rs. 1,000 he could refer the matter to the IAC. Any subsequent factual change would not affect his jurisdiction. This authority is applicable to the present case. The ITO found that the concealed income was more than Rs. 25,000 and penalty proceedings, in such circumstances, be taken by the IAC. Consequently, he referred the matter to him. The fact that after hearing the assessee the IAC came to the conclusion that the concealed income was less than Rs. 25,000 would not affect his jurisdiction to impose appropriate penalty. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the assessee in CIT v. Om Sons [1979] 116 IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich laid down the period of limitation of two years commencing from the date of the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings was amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, with effect from April 1, 1971, enlarging the period of limitation to two years commencing from the end of the finacial year in which the assessment order was passed. It was held that the prescription of the period of limitation being a matter of procedure, any amendment in this regard will be retrospective in the sense that it will apply to all those matters which are pending and which had not become closed or dead on the date the amendment takes effect. The assessment order was passed on 1st of March, 1972. It will be the amended provision of s. 275 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
